1 2025:CGHC:57540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1119 of 2025 XYZ Nil ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pradeep Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate and Ms. Smriti Shirvastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26/11 /2025 1. The present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 Passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 320/2025 upholding the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the bail application of the applicant in connection with Crime No.245/2024 registered at Police Station Ganj, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Section PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.11.27 14:37:35 +0530 2 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, (in short ‘NDPS’) was rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.06.2024, the police of Police Station Ganj received information from an informant that at Fafadih Chowk, Station Chowk Gate No. 2, two persons were standing who were in possession of cannabis for sale. On the basis of this information, the police personnel conducted a raid and allegedly recovered 15.70 kg of cannabis from accused Vikas Pandey and 10.700 kg of cannabis from the present applicant. Accordingly, the alleged offence was registered, and the accused persons, including the present applicant, were arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He submits that the alleged cannabis was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is a juvenile and that his case is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. The applicant has been in jail since 21.06.2024. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, as his release would not pose any danger to society, and he has no criminal antecedents. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that, as is evident from the order-sheets of the trial Court dated 01.05.2025 onward, the delay in concluding the trial is due to the absence of the counsel for the applicant and the applicant’s parents before the concerned trial Court, due to which the trial has not been completed till date. He further submits that from the possession of the present applicant, a contraband article weighing 10.700 grams was recovered, and from the co-accused, 15 kg 70 grams was recovered. He also submits that the present applicant is a resident of Uttar Pradesh (U.P.), and if he is granted bail, the trial may be prejudiced. Therefore, the 3 present applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further the fact that the as is evident from the order-sheets of the trial Court dated 01.05.2025 onward, the delay in concluding the trial is due to the absence of the counsel for the applicant and the applicant’s parents before the concerned trial Court, due to which the trial has not been completed till date, moreover the fact that from the joint possession of the present applicant along with other co-accused person, contraband article i.e. 25.770 kgs of ganja was recovered, which is much more than the commercial quantity and the applicant has failed to give any explanation for the same and it cannot be said to be a case of false implication. 7. 7. For the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of appellate Court as well as the Juvenile Justice Board warranting interference in the revision. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti